Preventive detention safeguards: delayed approval and sluggish representation review invalidated detention despite property grabber allegations.

Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 permits the State Government to delegate detention power to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, and the delegation was stated to be valid. The detention was also supported on material showing the detenues as property grabbers whose dealings in Government land, unauthorised transfers and related acts prejudicially affected public order. However, the detention was held illegal because statutory approval was not shown to have been obtained within twelve days and the detenues' representation under Article 22(5) was not considered independently and expeditiously, vitiating the preventive detention.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State Government could validly delegate detention power under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 to the District Magistrate; (ii) whether the detention was justified on the footing that the appellants were property grabbers whose activities prejudicially affected public order; (iii) whether the detention became illegal for want of timely approval and for delay in considering the detenues' representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the State Government could validly delegate detention power under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 to the District Magistrate.

Analysis: The power of detention under Section 3(1) is exercisable by the State Government, and Section 3(2) authorises delegation to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in the concerned area. The statutory scheme treats such officers as the most suitable authorities for prompt action where anti-social activities affect or are likely to affect public order. The contention that only selective delegation was permissible was rejected.

Conclusion: The delegation under Section 3(2) was held valid and legal.

Issue (ii): whether the detention was justified on the footing that the appellants were property grabbers whose activities prejudicially affected public order.

Analysis: The Act defines a property grabber as a person who illegally takes possession of land not belonging to him, deals with such land through sale, lease, rental or unauthorised construction, or otherwise abets such conduct. On the materials recorded by the detaining authority, the appellants had dealt with Government land, sold it to third parties despite status quo, created unauthorized transactions, and generated insecurity and tension in the locality. The satisfaction recorded was based on definite material and was not shown to be arbitrary.

Conclusion: The detention was held to be founded on material sufficient to bring the appellants within the definition of property grabber and within the mischief of prejudicial impact on public order.

Issue (iii): whether the detention became illegal for want of timely approval and for delay in considering the detenues' representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Under Section 3(3), an order passed by the authorised officer cannot continue beyond twelve days unless approved by the State Government. Separately, Article 22(5) requires that the detenue's representation be considered with expedition and without waiting for the Advisory Board's opinion. The representation was kept pending until the Board's opinion was received, and there was no material showing approval within twelve days of execution. Such delay and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements vitiated the detention.

Conclusion: The detention was held illegal for breach of the mandatory approval requirement and for delayed consideration of the representation.

Final Conclusion: The detention orders could not be sustained because the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing approval and representation were not complied with, and the detenues were entitled to release.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order passed by an authorised officer under the Act must receive timely statutory approval where required, and a detenue's representation under Article 22(5) must be considered independently and expeditiously; failure to comply with these mandatory safeguards invalidates the detention.

---